United States v. Gray
642 F.3d 371
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Wells and Rhodes challenged their §1519 obstruction convictions after privately operated Queens Private Correctional Facility housed federal prisoners and reported the assault as if no force occurred.
- The incident involved officer Wells striking Rex Eguridu in the shower after Eguridu called an officer “baby,” with others witnessing the assault.
- QPCF conducted internal investigations in which officers, including Wells, Rhodes, Gray, and Mack, submitted multiple reports denying any force.
- DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General later conducted a federal investigation; Wells and Rhodes gave voluntary interviews and later provided truthful statements.
- Indictment charged Wells, Rhodes, Gray, and Mack with various obstruction, false statement, and conspiracy counts related to the false reports and the assault.
- Wells was convicted of five counts and Rhodes of two; the district court sentenced Wells to 1 year and 1 day and Rhodes to three years of probation; Mack and Day received related testimony explored at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1519 requires a nexus to a federal proceeding | Aguilar/Andersen require nexus to a proceeding | §1519 has plain text not requiring nexus | No nexus requirement; statute unambiguous |
| Whether a private prison would render the matter outside DOJ jurisdiction for §1519 | QPCF is privately owned; no DOJ matter | QPCF contracts with DOJ; internal investigation within DOJ jurisdiction | QPCF’s contract and DOJ reporting obligations place the matter within DOJ jurisdiction |
| Whether knowledge of a DOJ investigation is required | Knowledge of DOJ investigation required | Not required by statute | Knowledge not required; no knowledge element in §1519 needed |
| Whether the Eguridu assault was too attenuated to support §1519 | Attenuation defeats nexus | Occurrence within time frame of investigation; not too attenuated | No attenuation issue prevents §1519 conviction; ongoing investigation suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995) (nexus requirement for obstruction statutes; linking to pending proceeding necessary)
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005) (requires nexus between conduct and official proceeding under §1512(b)(2) extension principles)
- United States v. Schwarz, 283 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002) (nexus analysis for obstruction statutes; ties to pending or foreseeable proceeding)
- United States v. Reich, 479 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2007) (application of nexus principles to other obstruction statutes)
- Kun Yun Jho, 465 F. Supp. 2d 618 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (rejected strict nexus requirement for §1519 in certain contexts)
- Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246 (2004) (statutory interpretation emphasizing plain meaning and purpose)